D&D 5E (2024) Not a fan of the new Eldritch Knight

[Ancoulainn]

Theres an origin feat in Lorwyn with hex iirc

Yes, Shadowmoor Hexer, but to me, Lorwyn is like Eberron and only setting specific, so I didn't consider it. But if the DM allows it, that's great. And in that case, it's a great feat.

We just take hex in 5.0 mode hex vs hunters mark. I'll have to reread.

I've got a custom feat in my game also allowing hex.

That's nice!

Enchanter been powercrept out i was talking about it vs other 5.0 subclasses.

But you said before

If you layer a 5 0 enchanter onto a 5.5 wizard base class st level 10 its probably the best wizard vs the other 5 5.5 ones.

and even then, I don't think so because the Diviner is unchanged, the Necromancer has not been updated, but that's coming soon, the War Magic Wizard has not been updated, and the Chronurgy Wizard is also still on 5.0 and they all at least have an argument to make in that comparison. For example, adding several additional bodies on the battlefield as "meat" shields who can soak up damage and deal damage is something. As Pack Tactics always says, optimization is damage dealt vs damage taken and if you dealt damage to a creature and they now smash one of your summoned or undead minions, that's also a plus. And if they try to run past them and they all get an opportunity attack, that's also something. Whether it's better, depends on the situation, I'd say.

Im the guy who thinks wizards are a bit meh now except at higher levels.

Fair enough! I also thought that for a long time.

Power creep on Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers, Warlocks.

Those definitely got a bigger boost, for sure. But whether they can compete with Wizards depends on what you want to do. If you cast a lot of Ritual Spells, which Wizards don't have to prepare, then Wizards get a boost. If you don't have the opportunity to add many spells to your spellbook, then Wizards get a nerf. If you want to do crazy stuff with Summon Greater Demon and Planar Binding, then Wizards get a buff. The gap is definitely closer than it ever was.

Sorcerer with heighten will bea diviners wizard and you take twin spell as well.

That also depends. If the Diviner rolls low after a rest, you have two guaranteed fails on saves when it really matters. So, they may not be able to have an impact on saves as often as the Sorcerer, but they can have a big impact on those two saves. Which of the two is better depends on how your adventuring day goes.

Im not a fan of spellcaster damage in 5.5 exception is emanations and paralyzed.

This also depends on what you're facing. If you put 10 targets within 20 feet of one another, then a Fireball or Synaptic Static does 160d6=560 points of damage on one turn. If you compare a Sorcerer doing single target with a cantrip to a Fighter making three attacks, then yes, you're completely right. But I don't think that spellcasters are supposed to do that. I mean, imagine they could do the Fireball-thing and do the same damage as a Fighter or Paladin on single target and that from range, it would make the martials-caster-divide even larger.

Div8ne intervention hallow wasnt used as everyone was using different damage types.

Ah, that's of course unfortunate. I thought that at least the Monk and the Warlock both did Force damage. Or that the Monk could have swapped to Bludgeoning damage to match the Fighter's. But that makes perfect sense.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, Shadowmoor Hexer, but to me, Lorwyn is like Eberron and only setting specific, so I didn't consider it. But if the DM allows it, that's great. And in that case, it's a great feat.

That's nice!

But you said before



Fair enough! I also thought that for a long time.

Those definitely got a bigger boost, for sure. But whether they can compete with Wizards depends on what you want to do. If you cast a lot of Ritual Spells, which Wizards don't have to prepare, then Wizards get a boost. If you don't have the opportunity to add many spells to your spellbook, then Wizards get a nerf. If you want to do crazy stuff with Summon Greater Demon and Planar Binding, then Wizards get a buff. The gap is definitely closer than it ever was.

That also depends. If the Diviner rolls low after a rest, you have two guaranteed fails on saves when it really matters. So, they may not be able to have an impact on saves as often as the Sorcerer, but they can have a big impact on those two saves. Which of the two is better depends on how your adventuring day goes.

This also depends on what you're facing. If you put 10 targets within 20 feet of one another, then a Fireball or Synaptic Static does 160d6=560 points of damage on one turn. If you compare a Sorcerer doing single target with a cantrip to a Fighter making three attacks, then yes, you're completely right. But I don't think that spellcasters are supposed to do that. I mean, imagine they could do the Fireball-thing and do the same damage as a Fighter or Paladin on single target and that from range, it would make the martials-caster-divide even larger.

Ah, that's of course unfortunate. I thought that at least the Monk and the Warlock both did Force damage. Or that the Monk could have swapped to Bludgeoning damage to match the Fighter's. But that makes perfect sense.

Didn't think of force damage. Warlock was a bladelock she didnt really wantvto go there.

Warlock player she had to return to Indonesia and was replaced with a greatsword ranger. Ended up with two greatsword users.

Cleric didn't spot the hallow +DI combo and Monk he didnt really read the rules very well (didnt convert from 5.0 monk until lvl 9 or 10).

Bard player was kinda new as well.

 

[Ancoulainn]

Didn't think of force damage. Warlock was a bladelock she didnt really wantvto go there.

Warlock player she had to return to Indonesia and was replaced with a greatsword ranger. Ended up with two greatsword users.

Cleric didn't spot the hallow +DI combo and Monk he didnt really read the rules very well (didnt convert from 5.0 monk until lvl 9 or 10).

Bard player was kinda new as well.

Bard is definitely a tough class to play as a new player. Lots of moving parts.

 

[Zardnaar]

Bard is definitely a tough class to play as a new player. Lots of moving parts.

Yeah she missed most of the synergy. She figured out comnand spam and hold spells. First game she did alright and colluded with my wife.

 

[Ancoulainn]

Yeah she missed most of the synergy. She figured out comnand spam and hold spells. First game she did alright and colluded with my wife.

I have characters for campaign in which social encounters, exploration, and the like matter and I have characters for campaigns in which combat is the main focus. I play Bards in the former, but I wouldn't play Bards in the latter.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, that is exactly what Enchantment spells do and what the Charmed condition is. The Charmed condition says "The charmer has Advantage on any ability check to interact with you socially." which is identical with how the Influence Action works with Friendly targets which says "You have Advantage on an ability check to influence a Friendly creature." If you cast Suggestion or otherwise charm a target in combat, it changes its disposition towards you from hostile to friendly. Ergo, it clearly changes how the target thinks. That's the whole point of Enchantment spells.

No, it's not. Charm Person doesn't let you make the person jump off a cliff, and that's one that does affect a target's emotions. Even charm person doesn't allow you to force suicidal things. Nor does charmed the condition force willingness. Unless the monster actually wanted to fail to resist your spells before the Charmed condition was applies, the monster isn't going to be willing after, unless you have time to engage it in conversation and convince it to be willing through roleplaying and ability checks.

Suggestion explicitly only forces a course of action and does not force emotions or thought other than to grant advantage in a social ability check.. You are adding to the spell that which is not there.

What would happen is that the one failing the save vs. suggestion would surrender on his turn, instantly ending the spell. You wouldn't even have time to make a social ability check with advantage.

Regardless, there is a different argument for your position in there that requires only careful reading and no philosophical discussion. The Influence Action differentiates between willing, unwilling, and hesitant creatures. "Willing" is defined as "your urging aligns with the monster’s desires" and due to the previously mentioned similarity between Charmed and Friendly, you can deduce that a Charmed target isn't considered willing to give into Nystul's unless that coincidentally aligns with its desires.

However, you can also turn that around and say that the desire of a charmed monster under the effect of Suggestion is to comply with the suggestion because it says "The Charmed target pursues the suggestion to the best of its ability." And that would make the monster willing according to the definition in the PHB because its desires now align with the urging.

Incorrect. It does not say it pursues the suggestion to the best of its ability. It says it purses the suggested COURSE OF ACTION to the best of it's ability. The only action you specified was to surrender, so in the instant it surrenders on its next turn, the suggestion and charm go away as the spell ends.

But you could also argue based on Crawford's ruling with regards to the Dissonant Whispers-Booming Blade interaction. Booming Blade states "If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends." and Crawford has said that the movement from Dissonant Whispers is not willing but forced movement, but that's unofficial and therefore not a good argument.

It does show the intent behind charm, though. So not only are you adding to charm that which isn't there, you are ignoring RAI that confirms that what you are adding isn't correct.

It's not clever wordplay. It's accurate reading paired with creativity. You can certainly argue whether someone can be forced to be willing and then have a table discussion over psychological phenomena like the Stockholm Syndrome and beyond, but as interesting as that may be, it misses the point if it's not in the rules and no "obvious", "common sense", "RAI", or whatever can change that. Only a DM-ruling can.

It's not accurate reading at all. Charmed cannot and does not force willingness. Suggestion cannot and does not do anything other than force a course of action, and make the person more prone to believe you with social ability checks.

 

[Maxperson]

Where in the rules does it say that the creature isn't willing after failing the save? From what passages in the rules or the glossary is any of that?

Irrelevant. If you can't show that it is written that the creature IS willing after failing the save, then the creature is not. Only what is written is RAW, and nothing written in the Charmed condition or Suggestion spell forces willingness. Further, the fact that you still have to make ability checks with advantage and can fail to convince the Charmed creature means that it is not forced to be willing.

 

[Maxperson]

It's in Tasha's which is one of the standard/core books.

Only the PHB, DMG and MM are core books. All else are splat books and since it can't be assumed that the DM owns/knows it, can't be assumed to be in use. You need to ask your DM. I allow all of the books. Other DMs do not.

 

[Maxperson]

The only one that is aligned with the wording of the rules and that doesn't involve bending over backwards

Your interpretation doesn't align with the wording of the rules at all.

"Willing. If your urging aligns with the monster's desires, no ability check is necessary; the monster fulfills your request in a way it prefers."

Do you see how with a willing creature no ability check is necessary? Here's Charmed.

"While you have the Charmed condition, you experience the following effects.
Can't Harm the Charmer. You can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with damaging abilities or magical effects.
Social Advantage. The charmer has Advantage on any ability check to interact with you socially."

Do you see how Charmed grants advantage on ability checks made socially?

Those are mutually exclusive positions. You cannot have Charmed make someone willing and therefore not have any ability check in social situations like your suggestion idea to fail saves, and also cause social ability checks to be made with advantage. That's hard proof that the Charmed condition does not make creatures willing.

The only one bending over backwards here to make their interpretation happen is you. There's nothing written that allows what you say, and there are written rules that directly oppose what you say.

The Suggestion spell can only force a course of action against the will of creature. It then applies the Charmed condition, which as I just proved, does not force willingness. Your proposal upthread fails on its face.

 

[Ancoulainn]

No, it's not. Charm Person doesn't let you make the person jump off a cliff, and that's one that does affect a target's emotions. Even charm person doesn't allow you to force suicidal things. Nor does charmed the condition force willingness. Unless the monster actually wanted to fail to resist your spells before the Charmed condition was applies, the monster isn't going to be willing after, unless you have time to engage it in conversation and convince it to be willing through roleplaying and ability checks.

Suggestion explicitly only forces a course of action and does not force emotions or thought other than to grant advantage in a social ability check.. You are adding to the spell that which is not there.

What would happen is that the one failing the save vs. suggestion would surrender on his turn, instantly ending the spell. You wouldn't even have time to make a social ability check with advantage.

I understand that this is your opinion and that all good and fair. But from what passage in the rules do you gather this?

Incorrect. It does not say it pursues the suggestion to the best of its ability. It says it purses the suggested COURSE OF ACTION to the best of it's ability. The only action you specified was to surrender, so in the instant it surrenders on its next turn, the suggestion and charm go away as the spell ends.

I have the spell right here. It says "The Charmed target pursues the suggestion to the best of its ability." I post a screenshot of the spell to the response.

As for the action part, you seem to insuinuate that changing your disposition, your thoughts, and the like wouldn't be actions? So, learning, thinking, etc are not actions to you?

It does show the intent behind charm, though. So not only are you adding to charm that which isn't there, you are ignoring RAI that confirms that what you are adding isn't correct.

Yes, I think I said somewhere that I don't care about RAI. First of all, if you haven't spoken to the creators, you don't know what they intended. If you had, you could just quote them and say, "Here, Jeremy Crawford said this", but instead, you give me your personal opinion and try to elevate it by calling it RAI. It doesn't add weight to your opinion, just because you provide a different word for it.

All that matters is RAW. Think about it! If a cop stopped you for speeding and you were going 30 where the signs say 30 and he told you that they intended for it to be 25, would you be cool with that? The basic concept of life that rules only determine what they say with the words, symbols, or expressions that they have and not some imaginary superseeding meaning behind them doesn't change just because it's a TTRPG. And you're not the Supreme Court of DnD.

It's not accurate reading at all. Charmed cannot and does not force willingness. Suggestion cannot and does not do anything other than force a course of action, and make the person more prone to believe you with social ability checks.

And things like "believe me", "trust me", "like me", etc are courses of action. There is nothing in the English language that says that they would not.

If instead of rambling, you could at least argue that in the English language, we distinguish between action verbs and stative verbs, we would get somewhere. Just say that "to love" is a stative verb, but that "to fall in love" is an action verb and it's an argument. We could discuss whether there would be a way to phrase the suggestion in a manner that it complies with the requirements of the spell and maybe we'd find out that we can't. That would be progress. But this tug of war of personal opinions, like they meant something, is just tedious.

Irrelevant. If you can't show that it is written that the creature IS willing after failing the save, then the creature is not. Only what is written is RAW, and nothing written in the Charmed condition or Suggestion spell forces willingness. Further, the fact that you still have to make ability checks with advantage and can fail to convince the Charmed creature means that it is not forced to be willing.

That's your opinion, not established by the rules. Nothing you say is founded in the rules. Suggestion talks about a course of action. "Be willing" or "make yourself willing" is a course of action and, as I said before, the phenomenon of autosuggestion illustrates that it's achievable. It says nowhere that it has to be a physical act and cannot be a mental one.

Only the PHB, DMG and MM are core books. All else are splat books and since it can't be assumed that the DM owns/knows it, can't be assumed to be in use. You need to ask your DM. I allow all of the books. Other DMs do not.

Again, your opinion. I don't ask. Never have asked. Never will ask. Always expect the DM to provide a clear list of what goes and what not before or at session 0. And never encountered a DM who said they were not allowed. Nor would I play with one. If you want to handle this differently, I'm not stopping you. And since you don't, why are trying to tell me what to do? It doesn't even apply to you.

Your interpretation doesn't align with the wording of the rules at all.

"Willing. If your urging aligns with the monster's desires, no ability check is necessary; the monster fulfills your request in a way it prefers."

Do you see how with a willing creature no ability check is necessary? Here's Charmed.

"While you have the Charmed condition, you experience the following effects.
Can't Harm the Charmer. You can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with damaging abilities or magical effects.
Social Advantage. The charmer has Advantage on any ability check to interact with you socially."

Do you see how Charmed grants advantage on ability checks made socially?

Those are mutually exclusive positions. You cannot have Charmed make someone willing and therefore not have any ability check in social situations like your suggestion idea to fail saves, and also cause social ability checks to be made with advantage. That's hard proof that the Charmed condition does not make creatures willing.

Yes, that is an argument against my position that I myself provided. It's great that the best argument all you passionate antagonists can provide is something I already thought of and mentioned myself.

The only one bending over backwards here to make their interpretation happen is you. There's nothing written that allows what you say, and there are written rules that directly oppose what you say.

The Suggestion spell can only force a course of action against the will of creature. It then applies the Charmed condition, which as I just proved, does not force willingness. Your proposal upthread fails on its face.

The "bending over backwards" is with regards to not having an argument besides a personal opinion, not with regards to the result. My point is not that I am correct or that y'all are not. Why would it be? Every table decides and rules differently on all sorts of game mechanics all the time. Or do you really think I would change my disposition towards anything at my table just because somebody here says something? Do you think that I expect you to do so at your table because I said something? Why would I even care about that? It doesn't involve me and it doesn't affect me. My point is that y'all are arguing without having a single valid argument aside from the one I provided y'all with. Y'all are arguing only to antagonize. And the other dude all but said so explicitly by saying that he wanted to make sure that inexperienced DM coming to forums would see dissenting viewpoints.